The Achievement Gap, the EducationConspiracy Against Low Income Children, andHow This Conspiracy Has Dragged Down the

Achievement of All Students

Joseph S. Renzulli

The University of Connecticut

Nobody believes in action anymore, so words have become a substitute for action, all the way to the top, a substitute for the truth nobody wants to hear

because they can’t change it, or they’ll lose their jobs if they change it, or maybe they simply don’t know how to change it.

John Le Carré, The Russia House

Although the biggest challenge facing today’s schools is the achievement gap that

exists between advantaged and low income students, the ways we have addressed this

problem have also produced flat line academic growth among our most able students,

rampant boredom among students at all levels, and public dissatisfaction with an

education system that is immune to anything but the superficial trappings of change.

The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) reports in The Nation’s

Report Card in 2005 that half of all immigrant, minority, and low-income children never

graduate from high school, and in many of our cities more than 30 percent of low-income

students score at the lowest percentiles on national reading and math tests. An even

sadder commentary is that the ways we have addressed this achievement problem have

resulted in collateral damage that has seriously undermined good teaching in even our

best schools, deskilled many of our teachers, squeezed subjects other than math and

reading out of the curriculum, and produced data juggling, test result falsification,

making state tests easier, and outright lying on the parts of desperate administrators who

will do almost anything to avoid being branded leaders of “failing schools.” And even

when we do see reports of test improvements, they sometimes mask other types of

1

collateral damage such as increased dropout rates, de-emphasis of the arts, sciences, and

social studies, and diminished matriculation to post high school education.

The Three Trillion Dollar Misunderstanding

How did we get into this mess? Why hasn’t the estimated three trillion dollars

spent on school reform since the 1960s made more of an impact (Miami-Dade County

Public Schools, 2008). We’ve tried just about everything – smaller schools, year-round

schools, longer school days, single sex classes, after school mentoring, school uniforms,

vouchers, charter schools, school-business partnerships, merit pay for teachers, paying

students (and even parents) for higher scores, private management companies and for-

profit schools, take overs by mayors and state departments of education, distributive

leadership, site-based management, data-based decision making, and just about every

scheme imaginable into which someone can insert the words, “standards based,”

“accountability,” or “brain based.” And every buzz word in a profession that already

thrives on too much jargon eventually creeps into the repertoire of policy makers, shifting

the focus off of student needs and appropriate pedagogy for meeting these needs and on

to inflexible bureaucratic solutions that ignore individual learning needs. All of these

suggested solutions, usually launched with much fanfare, endless and usually mind

numbing workshops for teachers, and little if any research or track record for success

have been offered as silver bullets that can “save” our schools and raise the test scores of

our lowest achieving students. The sad fact is these schemes simply have not worked!

What do all of these reform initiatives have in common? Most are built on

structural changes, designed by well-intentioned policy makers or agencies (usually far

removed from the classroom), and calculated to have an impact on entire school districts,

states, or even the entire nation. More important, however, is that these structural

changes have drawn mainly upon (and even forced) a low level pedagogy that is highly

prescriptive and didactic -- approaches to learning that emphasize the accumulation,

storage, and retrieval of information that will show up on the next round of standardized

tests. We have become so obsessed with content standards and test scores that assess

mainly memory, that we have lost sight of the most important outcomes of schooling --

thinking, reasoning, creativity and problem solving skills that allow young people to use

the information driven by content standards in interesting and engaging ways.

2

Are there Reasonable and Practical Alternatives?

Over the past decade the mainstream diet for the majority of low income and

struggling learners has been dominated by a remedial and compensatory pedagogy that

has not diminished the achievement gap, but, as research has shown, has actually

contributed to its perpetuation (Ford, Howard, Harris & Tyson, 2000; American

Educational Research Association [AERA], 2004). Many of these programs are designed

to find out what a child can’t do, doesn’t like to do, and sees no reason for doing, and

then teachers are told to spend the majority of classroom time beating him or her to death

with it. This pedagogy of prescription and practice simply hasn’t worked!

Documentation of this failure is plainly evident in one national report after another

(National Assessment of Educational Progress [NAEP], 2005; Center on Education

Policy [CEP], 2008), and yet we continue our search for yet another quick-fix through

structural rearrangements of schools, rather than alternative pedagogical modifications

that deal directly with the enjoyment, engagement, and enthusiasm that results from a

more inductive and investigative brand of learning. The solutions offered by whatever

new names we give them (e.g., Competency Based, Outcomes Based, Standards Based)

are always reiterations of the same pedagogy – the same drill-and-practice model for

learning that simply has not worked. And the universal criterion for accountability

always remains the same, again with new names given to the same old achievement tests

that mainly measure memorized factual information. It is the singular reliance on these

tests for accountability, at the exclusion of other important performance based outcomes

that forces the pedagogy of prescription, a pedagogy that drives good teachers from the

profession, and that lobotomizes those teachers who remain. Is it any wonder that some

of our very best teachers are fleeing urban schools where prescription has become the

almost universally practiced pedagogy?

Learning Theory 101: The Short Course

All learning, from diapers to doctorate, exists on a continuum ranging from

deductive, didactic, and prescriptive on one hand to inductive, investigative, and inquiry-

oriented on the other. Students who have not achieved are subjected to endless amounts

of repetitious practice material guided by the didactic model. Then, when scores do not

improve, we often think that the obvious solution is to simply redouble our efforts with

3

what has been popularly called a “drill and kill” approach to learning; an approach that

has turned many of our schools into joyless places that promote mind numbing boredom,

lack of genuine student and teacher engagement, absenteeism, increased dropout rates,

and other byproducts of over-dependence on mechanized learning. Proponents of

popular but highly prescriptive reading programs frequently boast about test score gains,

but the endless drill and practice only prepare students for taking tests correlated to the

worksheets rather than actually learning to read, let alone enjoying reading, and making

reading an important part of their lives (Reis et al, 2004). Many students subjected to

over prescription never pick up a book on their own, a sad commentary on how we have

messed up the teaching of reading by turning the teaching of reading into the teaching of

test taking.

With this kind of a track record shouldn’t we be smart enough to blend the

benefits of an inductive and investigative pedagogy into a system that has mainly failed

our at risk populations? And shouldn’t we also be smart enough to note the rising

dissatisfaction of middle class parents whose children are also becoming subjected to the

same drill oriented, test prep curriculum? One high school student recently described her

AP courses as “…nothing more than high-speed test prep;” and two Ohio students from

an affluent school district wrote in a letter to their governor, “Schools once renowned for

their unique learning programs are becoming nothing more than soulless factories that

churn out those that can excel at standardized tests while discarding those who can't.” Is

it any wonder that a parent from a high status community speculated that there was

indeed a sinister conspiracy afoot to close the achievement gap, and the conspiracy

consisted of dragging down the scores of high achieving students!

Research on the role of student engagement is clear and unequivocal – high

engagement results in higher achievement, improved self-concept and self-efficacy, and

more favorable attitudes toward school and learning (Herrington, Oliver & Reeves, 2002;

Ainley, 1993). There is a strong body of research that points out the crucial difference

between time-spent and time-engaged in school activities. In the recently published

international PISA study (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development

[OECD], 2007), the single criterion that distinguished between nations with the highest

and lowest levels of student achievement was the degree to which students were engaged

4

in their studies. This finding took into account demographic factors such as ethnicity and

the socioeconomic differences among the groups studied.

The Most Important Outcomes of Education

The pedagogy of prescription has perhaps unintentionally, but clearly in terms of

demonstrated results, withheld from low-income children the exact kinds of thinking

skills that are necessary for successful participation in today’s higher education and our

growing global economy. The word, “perhaps” is used because I don’t think there is a

clandestine conspiracy on the parts of policy makers and the textbook/testing cartel to

keep low-income children poorly educated thereby limiting access to economic mobility.

But make no mistake, neglect, mismanagement, and a lack of courage to challenge

unsuccessful practices is the equivalent of a bona fide conspiracy.

If failed approaches have continued to produce dismal results, perhaps it is time to

examine a counter-intuitive approach based on a pedagogy that is the polar opposite of

the pedagogy that Pavlov used to train his dogs! Accountability for the truly educated

mind in today’s knowledge-driven economy should first and foremost attend to students’

ability to:

• plan a task and consider alternatives

• monitor one’s understanding and the need for additional information

• identify patterns, relationships, and discrepancies in information

• generate reasonable arguments, explanations, hypotheses, and ideas using appropriate

information sources, vocabulary, and concepts

• draw comparisons and analogies to other problems

• formulate meaningful questions

• apply and transform factual information into usable knowledge

• rapidly and efficiently access just-in-time information and selectively extract

meaning from that information

• extend one's thinking beyond the information given

• detect bias, make comparisons, draw conclusions, and predict outcomes

• apportion time, schedules, and resources

• apply knowledge and problem solving strategies to real world problems

• work effectively with others

5

• communicate effectively in different genres, languages, and formats

• derive enjoyment from active engagement in the act of learning

• creatively solve problems and produce new ideas

These are the student engagement-oriented a skill that grow young minds,

promote genuine enthusiasm for learning, and, as our research has shown, increase

achievement (Renzulli & Reis, 1985). Although student engagement has been defined in

many ways, I view it as the infectious enthusiasm that students display when working on

something that is of personal interest and that is pursued in an inductive and investigative

approach to learning. It takes into account student learning styles and preferred modes of

expression as well as interests and levels of knowledge in an area of study. It is through

these highly engaging approaches that students are motivated to improve basic skills and

bring their work to higher and higher levels of perfection. True engagement results from

learning activities that challenge young people to “stretch” above their current comfort

level, activities that are based on resources and methods of inquiry that are qualitatively

different from excessive practice. And our research has shown that teaching students to

think critically and analytically and creatively actually improves plain old-fashioned

achievement (Renzulli & Reis, 1997; Renzulli, 2008). Our guiding principle in this kind

of learning is simply: No Child Left Bored!

Moreover, the key role of engagement cannot be over-emphasized for students

whose achievement has been hampered by limited experiences, resources, or supports. In

a longitudinal study comparing time-spent vs. time-engaged on the achievement of at-risk

students, conventional instructional practices were found to be responsible for the

students’ increased risk of academic delay (Greenwood, 1991). Another study reported

important differences in achievement outcomes favoring engaged over disengaged

students of similar ability (Greenwood, 1991). Hours of drilling on ACT questions in

Chicago high schools may be hurting, not helping, students’ scores on the college-

admission exam, according to a study released recently by a university-based research

organization (Samuels, 2008). The Consortium on Chicago School Research (2008),

based at the University of Chicago, found in their 2005 report that teachers in the

409,000-student district would spend about one month of instructional time on ACT

practice in the core classes offered during junior year. But the ACT scores were lower in

6

schools where 11th grade teachers reported spending 40 percent of their time on test

preparation, compared with schools where teachers devoted less than 20 percent of their

class time to the ACT. The boredom factor was cited as an explanation for this

seemingly counter intuitive finding.

Although focusing on the engagement-oriented outcomes listed above may be

counter intuitive to the “more-practice-is-better” pedagogy; we need only look at the

track record of compensatory learning models to realize we have been banging our

collective heads against the wall and following an endless parade of failed reforms being

forced through the schoolhouse door by people far removed from classrooms, schools,

and local level decision-makers. [Note: I have referred to the argument made here as a

counter-intuitive approach because almost every bone in most policy maker’s bodies sees

a certain logic in the more-practice-is-better approach to closing the achievement gap – it

just seems to “make sense.” The fact that this approach simply has not produced positive

results is the best evidence for coming at the problem from a different direction – this

conclusion also makes sense!]

How did we allow committees of bureaucrats to write endless lists of content

standards without equal or even greater attention to standards for good thinking and the

kinds of authentic assessment that shows how good thinking is demonstrated? How did

we allow textbook companies to stuff their books with more and more mind numbing

practice materials that prescribe and dictate what teachers must do every minute of the

school day? And how did we give the test publishers the gun that is held against the

collective heads of every superintendent, principal, teacher, and student in the nation?

Even state education commissioners and their agencies, some of which are responsible

for buying into various silver bullet solutions, are now being “held accountable” for low

scores in their states.

If we are going to break the strangle hold that the perpetrators of failed practices

have had on our schools and the lives of children, we need some leaders at all levels –

legislative, federal, state, and local – courageous enough to explore bolder and more

innovative alternatives that will provide all students with a more highly enriched diet –

the kind of diet that characterizes learning in the nation’s very best public and private

schools. This is not to say that we should abandon a strong curriculum that focuses on

7

basic competencies, nor should we forget to demand accountability data to evaluate

returns on investment for alternate approaches to addressing the problem. But we need to

move the focus away from memorizing content and toward the kinds of thinking skills

listed above; and we need to develop accountability procedures (not just tests) that show

us how well students are learning to apply their thinking to authentic problem solving

situations. This kind of accountability may not put the bubble sheet companies out of

business, but it will help force the issue of building a richer school pedagogy.

We also need to infuse into the curriculum a series of motivationally rich

experiences that promote student engagement, enjoyment, and a genuine enthusiasm for

learning. Common sense and our own experience tell us that we always do a better job

when we are working on something in which we are personally engaged – something that

we are really “into,” and that we truly enjoy doing. Take, for example, the demonstrated

benefits in performance that result from extra-curricular activities that are based on a

pedagogy that is the polar opposite of the pedagogy of drill and practice (Kaufman &

Gabler, 2004). How many unengaged students have you seen on the school newspaper

staff, the basketball team, the chess club, the debate team, or the concert choir? Their

engagement occurs because these students have some choice in the area in which they

will participate; they interact in a real-world goal oriented environment with other

likeminded students interested in developing expertise in their chosen area, they use

authentic problem solving, interpersonal, and creative strategies; they produce a product,

service, or performance that is evidence of the level and quality of their work; and their

work is brought to bear on one or more intended audiences other than, or at least in

addition to the teacher (Renzulli & Reis, 1985). The engagement that results from these

kinds of experiences exemplifies the best way to approach joyful and engaging learning;

one that differs completely from the prescriptive and remedial education that are the main

approaches to learning in low-income classrooms.

Is There A Way To Make Real Change Rather Than The Appearance of Change?

Recognition of the achievement gap problem and the effect that failed solutions

have had on schools that serve all of our young people has resulted in some very

predictable activity. The usual national commissions and new rounds of federal, state

and foundation reports calling for “bolder and broader approaches” have at least

8

recognized the existence of the crisis facing our schools; but we must be cautious of

looking for approaches that emphasize the same structural solutions without primary

consideration to the pedagogy which is at the core of any sustentative changes in

learning. We must also be cautious about seeking solutions from the same persons and

practices that caused these problems in the first place! Requiring all students to take x

number of courses, raising passionate calls for more teacher and administrator training,

rigorous standards based curriculum, extending the regular school day and year,

providing tutoring, homework helpers and summer school will not bring about

sustentative change unless we change how the required courses, tutoring, or summer

school taught. Let’s take as an example the tutoring issue and the $595 million spent on

this service in 2006-07. Findings on tutoring from three cities presented before the

American Educational Research Association (2008) support previous research about the

effectiveness of tutoring (Arnott, Hastings & Allbritton, 2008). In Milwaukee however,

researchers found no improvements in the scores of students receiving tutoring. “One

reason,” says Patricia Burch of the University of Wisconsin-Madison, “is that, in many

sessions, tutors used uninspired practices, such as handing out worksheets. Researchers

in L. A. found similar results.” This example points out the disconnect between a

perfectly good (indeed, ancient and honorable) educational practice [tutoring] and the

pedagogical way in which it was carried out.

Three Things We Can Do To Create A 21st Century Pedagogy

Before describing three things we can do to change the pedagogy, a word is in

order about the role of technology in the modern world. To a large degree we have

become what our technology has made us. We began communicating more effectively

because of inventions such as the telegraph, the telephone, and the Internet; and travel

became faster and more efficient with the inventions of the steam engine, the airplane,

and jet engines. In his book, The Power Makers: Steam, Electricity and the Men Who

Invented Modern America (Klein, 2008), Klein documents the well-known economic

principle that supply creates its own demand. Education changed dramatically when the

technology evolved from books that families and the schoolmaster had at hand to

textbooks from which all students could learn simultaneously. When schools gained the

technology of copy machines, easily reproducible workbooks and practice materials

9

became a mainstay of the learning process. This technology has driven both what and

how young people have learned for most of the past and present century. Students

memorize factual material and engage in endless practice simply because such material is

available. Supply creates its own demand!

Almost every area of modern life has made imaginative uses of technology, while

in education we have settled for electronic applications of the same old technology that

did not differ pedagogically from standard drill and practice forms of teaching (i.e.,

worksheets-on-line, etc.). These early generations of educational technology may have

given teachers some extra “helpers,” but because they were based on a knowledge

acquisition pedagogy the skills that students need for success in the 21st Century are still

only by-products of present day models of teaching and learning.

How can we bring about the changes in the engagement-oriented pedagogy

necessary to turn things around? Although I will not argue that technology without

planned teacher involvement and technology-savvy teachers is the answer to our prayers,

we now have the next generation of education technology that can give teachers the tools

to do several important things to promote a high engagement pedagogy. But we must be

careful not to use this technology to recreate electronic forms of the same old pedagogy

we are trying to improve upon. This technology goes beyond the worksheets-on-line,

electronic encyclopedias, and courses-on-line that was the earliest applications of

technology to classroom use – applications that did not differ pedagogically from

standard drill and practice forms of teaching.

Although it may sound clichéd, the advent of the Internet and easy access to most

of the world’s knowledge by young people is literally changing the time- honored

learning theories that have guided curriculum and instruction for several centuries.

Teachers and textbooks are no longer the gatekeepers of knowledge and the old

curriculum paradigm that consisted mainly of to-be-presented knowledge is giving way

to what I call just-in-time (JIT) knowledge – the kind of knowledge that students seek out

when it is necessary to solve a problem, whether posed by the teacher or self-selected by

a student (or small group) because of personal interest. Students will obviously need to

learn the basic skills of the three Rs, but they will also need to learn the following

technology skills of inquiry in order to make efficient use of JIT knowledge:

10

• The ability to identify trustworthy and useful information

• The ability to selectively manage overabundant information

• The ability to organize, classify, and evaluate information

• The ability to conduct self-assessments of web-based information

• The ability to use relevant information to advance the quality of one’s work

• The ability to communicate information effectively in various genres and modes of expression

This use of JIT knowledge, once the method of inquiry employed exclusively by

scholars, researchers, and creative producers, is the paradigm that is now available to all

young people and the paradigm that will create the motivation and engagement that has

largely been lost when most of learning followed a to-be-presented curriculum and a

brand of learning that minimized the sheer joy of finding-out things on one’s own. So let

us now look at three things we can do to apply this new generation of education

technology to modern day learning.

1. Assessment of Student Strengths. The first innovative use of this next-

generation technology is that teachers can now get a comprehensive look at all the major

characteristics of their students, characteristics that go beyond simply knowing a

student’s standardized achievement test standings compared to a norm based reference

group. Using a computer generated student profile developed at the University of

Connecticut, we are able to quickly and easily provide information about student

interests, learning styles, and preferred modes of expression as well as how students

perceive their strengths in the traditional academic subject areas (Reis & Renzulli, 2008).

The simple assumption underlying the use of this technology-generated profile is that the

more teachers knows about all of these dimensions of the learner, the better able they will

be to make decisions about what materials and activities have the highest potential for

engaging that learner.

2. Matching Resources to Student Profiles. Although “differentiation” is an

important contemporary goal of much of today’s efforts to make learning more

meaningful for young people, the sad fact is that most teachers simply do not have the

time seek out the resources that can accommodate the varied learning needs of a

11

increasingly diverse school population. The second way technology can affect pedagogy

is by giving teachers easy access to the wealth of enrichment and engagement-oriented

material that is available through the Internet and through materials and activities that

have been purposefully selected and placed into easily assessable data bases. Now let’s

look at a little of the “magic” of combining these two uses of technology and why we

consider this work to be a new generation of education technology! Through advanced

programming techniques, a search engine can examine thousands of multiply classified1

high engagement resources and match these resources to information about learner

characteristics revealed in student profiles. This tool provides teachers with the kind of

tool that allows for true differentiation based on individual student profiles, and the

computer has done the heavy lifting! In view of the number and diversity of young

people that teachers must deal with every day, it would be impossible to achieve this kind

of personalized learning without the use of technology. What is even more important is

that the easy availability of highly engaging resources and the matching capability of the

technology “forces” the kind of engagement-oriented pedagogy we are trying to infuse

into the curriculum.

3. Teacher Training. The third thing we can do is reexamine the ways that we

train teachers, especially already employed teachers who have not had access to the

technology courses now routinely available in most undergraduate teacher training

programs. The research shows that most school-based professional development has had

little or no effect on teachers’ classroom behaviors, and most teachers can tell their own

horror stories about sitting through endless hours of spray and pray workshops. Endless

lists of glittering generalities, flashy slide shows, flavor-of-the-month “innovations,” and

strategies with absolutely no research support are paraded out by seductive speakers who

sometimes appear to be auditioning for The Last Comic Standing! I have no argument

with a certain amount of professional development in general and content specific

teaching strategies, and all teachers should be constantly improving their subject matter

competency, but the focus of professional development in a technology driven pedagogy

should be on the skills that allow teachers to help young people master the technology

skills of inquiry listed above. The acquisition and application of these skills will turn our 1 (e.g., subject areas, reading level, state standards, interests, learning styles, and expression styles)

12

teachers into the proverbial “guides-on-the-side” rather than simply traditional

disseminators of information which have characterized so much of our education system

in pre-technology approaches to learning. And this transformed role of teachers and

approaches to instruction will bring about the sought after differentiation and changes in

engagement and motivation that have eluded us in reform efforts thus far.

Many national education leaders and politicians are describing the current

challenges facing our schools as a crisis in the American education system. It will not be

easy to turn around a school system whose leaders have made massive financial and

policy investments in one particular brand of learning, nor will it be easy to circumvent

the powerful influence of the textbook and test publishing industries that have thrived on

a prescriptive curriculum and standardized test-driven approaches to accountability. But

a gentle and evolutionary rather than revolutionary approach to school reform is possible

if we begin to take advantage of the remarkable advances that have taken place in the

information technologies, advances that have brought within reach the equivalent of a

dozen teaching assistants in every classroom, all day, every day. These technologies now

make it possible to quickly and easily assess students’ interests, learning styles, and

preferred modes of expressing themselves. What formerly took teachers weeks or even

months to learn about student strengths can now be assessed in less than an hour through

computer generated profiles, and powerful search engines can examine thousands of

high-end learning resources that match these resources to individual student profiles.

True differentiation, much talked about but seldom achieved, can take place if we can let

the technology do the hard work of finding and matching resources that are engagement

oriented rather than practice oriented.

Dr. Leon Lederman, the Nobel Prize winning physicist, recently said, “Once upon

a time, America sheltered an Einstein, went to the Moon, and gave the world the laser,

electronic computer, nylon stockings, television, and the cure for polio. Today we are in

the process, albeit unwittingly, of abandoning this leadership role.” Every school and

classroom in this country has in it young people who are capable of continuing this

remarkable tradition. But the tradition will not survive without a national resolve and

bold action on the parts of policy makers at all levels to change the pedagogy that drives

instruction in classrooms that serve all of our young people. You don’t produce future

13

scientists and inventors such as Jonas Salk, George Washington Carver, Thomas Edison,

Sally Ride, or Marie Curie by forcing them to learn in a one-size-fits-all drill and practice

curriculum or by spending hundreds of hours preparing for state achievement tests. You

don’t develop the potential of thousands of Leonard Bernsteins, Aretha Franklins, or

Miles Davis’ without providing them with highly engaging opportunities in music that

typically are only available in out-of-school opportunities and mainly to the children of

the well-to-do. You don’t develop world leaders such as Martin Luther King, Golda

Meir, Eleanor Roosevelt, and Mahatma Gandhi by having them memorize endless lists of

facts that today’s technology-savvy kids can find when they need them using a few clicks

on the web. And you don’t produce the next generation of talented writers such as

Rachel Carson, Langston Hughes and Tennessee Williams by having them spend endless

hours completing mindless worksheets in preparation for the next round of state mastery

tests. It is only through expanding our pedagogy, engaging all students, and making

imaginative uses of technology that America’s schools will be able to truly engage our

children and develop their creative potential, as well as their love of learning.

References

14

Ainley, M. (1993). Styles of engagement with learning: Multidimensional assessment of their relationship with strategy use and school achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85(3), 395.

American Educational Research Association [AERA]. (2004, Fall). Closing the Gap: High achievement for students of color. Research Points: Essential Information for Education Policy, 2(3). Washington, DC: Author.

Arnott, E., Hastings, P., & Allbritton, D. (2008, August). Research Methods Tutor: Evaluation of a dialogue-based tutoring system in the classroom. Behavior Research Methods, 40(3), 694-698.

Center for Education Policy [CEP]. (2008, Fall). A Call to Restructure Restructuring: Lessons from the No Child Left Behind Act in Five States. Washington, DC: Author.

Consortium on Chicago School Research. (2008). From High School to the Future: Too much, too late. Chicago: Author.

Ford, D. Y., Howard, T. C., Harris, J. J., & Tyson, C. A. (2000). Creating culturally responsive classrooms for gifted African American students. Journal for the education of the gifted, 23, 397-427.

Greenwood, C. R. (1991). Longitudinal analysis of time, engagement, and achievement in at-risk versus non-risk students (at risk of low academic achievement). Exceptional Children. Exceptional Children, 57(6).

Herrington, J., Oliver, R. & Reeves, T. (2002). Patterns of engagement in authentic online learning environments. Lismore, NSW: Southern Cross University Press.

Kaufman, J., & Gabler, J. (2004, April). Cultural capital and the extracurricular activities of girls and boys in the college attainment process. Poetics, 32(2), 145.

Klein, M. (2008). The Power Makers: Steam, Electricity and the Men Who Invented Modern America. London: Bloomsbury Press.

Miami-Dade County Public Schools. (2008). Regal Plan: Revamping education for the gifted and all learners. Retrieved October 7, 2008 from website http://advancedacademicprograms.dadeschools.net/regalPlan/GiftedTaskForceReport.pdf

National Assessment of Educational Progress. (2005). The nation’s report card: Reading 2005. Washington, DC: The National Center for Education Statistics.

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. (2007) Assessing Scientific, Reading and Mathematical Literacy: A framework for PISA. Paris: Author.

15

Reis, S. M., Eckert, R. D., Jacobs, J. K., Coyne, M. D., Richards, S., Briggs, C. J., Schreiber, F.J., Gubbins, E. J. (2004). Schoolwide enrichment model reading framework. Storrs, Connecticut: The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.

Reis, S., & Renzulli, J. (2008, June). Differentiation and Enrichment. District Administration, 44(7), 22-23.

Renzulli, J. S., & Reis, S. M. (1985). The schoolwide enrichment model: A Comprehensive plan for educational excellence. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.

Renzulli, J. S., Reis, S. M. (1997). The schoolwide enrichment model: A how-to guide for educational excellence. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.

Renzulli, J. S. (2008). Engagement is the answer. Education Week, 27 (43), 30 – 31.

Samuels, C. (2008, June 4). ACT Test-Prep Backfiring in Chicago, Study Warns. Education Week, 27(39), 6-7.

16